It must really get your goat that people are wary...
It got you so peeved you started another thread on it, and it appears you have no great love for Mas Ayoob.
Fair enough.
I don't have to prove you wrong. Even if there was one, I don't have to cite a case file. Matter of fact, I don't owe you anything. This is an internet forum, where people hide behind their ISP's and yell stuff like
Ultimate Shotgun or
Glock Rulez. If you don't like what happens, you either ask a moderator for help or add the guy to your ignore list. You don't demand stuff based on your dislike of their requested opinion, like this particular thread. Comprende'?
Now, as posted above, You've already said this MAY come true, but it doesn't concern you, it's down there in the weeds. So you're set, right? Why are you so aggravated, you've chosen your course of action, nothing should bother you. But it torques you that others choose a legally safer course of action as part of their defensive plan. Maybe my responses above confused you.
Ok, let me spell it out. You want to load hollow-base wadcutters backwards in a .357 Magnum in a case full of WW296 as defense loads, knock yourself out. Wanna seal a drop of mercury or curare in that big open-mouthed wadcutter to better your odds of permanently anchoring the bad guy? Enjoy. Heck, you can also carry a Thunder 5 revolver or a snubby .454 Cassull, one-shot stops should be the norm. Great. That's your own personal investment in risk management, you've made the choice and are willing to live with it.
You're betting that the ammo you made for carry and defense will not only stop the attack on your person, but will also pass scrutiny in this day and age when people win large awards for spilling coffee in their laps. Or you're betting that nobody will pay attention to what was used, they'll be too focused on other aspects of the case.
It's gotta be the status quo, because nobody's ever been penalized so far, right? Of course, that's just like the fact that there's a lot of drunk drivers on the roads who never seem to get busted, the law of averages somehow always plays in their favor.
Now, in your expert legal experience, can you unequivocally, without reservation or hesitation, guarantee somewhere down the road that the ammunition aspect of the defendant's (your) actions in a civil court shooting case won't be brought up as an argument in the trial? In other words, the surviving family of the now-deceased bad guy hired The Dream Team for attorneys, and they want a piece of you in a bad way. Can you predict their course of action during the trial?
If you can, you're clairvoyant, and need to stop wasting your time here on THR, because there's a TV show with your name on it.
If you can't, you have absolutely no right to denigrate somebody's own risk-management choice in carry ammo just because it isn't a handload. They've also made a conscientious decision, and it leans on the side of legal safety. It's a very small investment that could prevent a lifetime of grief otherwise. Or would you like to give the opposition ammo of their own when your very livelihood is at stake?
As a forensics type, I know that the federal and state crime labs have the ability to tell the difference between factory loaded and handloaded ammo. They have certain rules of engagement with respect to criminal court cases. Unfortunately, the civil courts, with private attorneys, don't play so nice, and they can hire independent analysis labs to do the same forensics. Just another thing to think about when choosing a handgun and ammo combination for personal defense, because even though you may survive the first attack...
Note: I did not call anybody an Ayoob Paranoid here. People make choices. Why is it so hard to respect them, or at least question their choices without ridicule?
